They can't take it from you because you can declare a higher value. You would have to pay more in taxes on it, but it should still be profitable. The whole poin

They can't take it from you because you can declare a higher value. You would have to pay more in taxes on it, but it should still be profitable. The whole point though (according the authors) was that if it were MORE profitable to someone else (because they had complimentary assets or some ability to use it in way that you can't) then it is better for that person to buy it and create more value from it. To take a completely contrived and unrealistic example, imagine that you owned a piece of land with some rare plant that can be turned into a cancer cure. This plant ONLY exists on your land. Obviously this land is extremely valuable to someone who can actually bring the cancer drug to market. You can of course refuse to sell the land (it is your land to do with as you want) but it seems sub-optimal for society for you to do so. Under this system you would either have to pay a really high tax or actually sell the land to someone who can make the cancer drug